ROLL A 37

Membr. 1

Writ of certiorari to the mayor and sheriffs, demanding the
cause of the taking and detaining of John Sewale of Isildon,
carter, in Newgate gaol.

Return of Richard Whityngton, mayor, and John Wodecok
and William Askham, sheriffs, that John Sewale was committed to prison on the appeal of Richard Hawtyn, glover,
as follows:

On Thursday 27 Dec. 1397 Richard Hawtyn, glover, came
to Newgate before the mayor and sheriffs, John Cokayn,
recorder, and John Michel, coroner, and appealed John
Sewale, carter, because that the said John on 15 Sept. 1397
in the church of St Martin le Grand said to him that there
was no peace or love in England since the present king
became king, and that he was not a right king (fn. 1).

Further the said John Sewale was detained in prison for
a debt of 40 marks recovered against him in a plea of trespass
before Adam Bamme, late mayor.

1 Aug. 1397

Writ, directed to the mayor and sheriffs, reciting that
among the liberties of Oxford (fn. 2) which the king had confirmed,
it had been granted that the burgesses should be quit of toll,
passage and every other custom throughout England and
Normandy, bilande & bistrande, and that they and their
heirs should have their liberties, laws, customs and tenures,
with soch and sack, thol and theam and infangfthef, even as
the citizens of London had them, and that if any one took
toll or other custom, of which the burgesses were quit, the
mayor and bailiffs at Oxford should take a pledge (namium)
at Oxford until restitution was made. The citizens of London
are commanded to permit the enjoyment of these liberties
and to release any distress made for this reason, or show
cause to the contrary. Dated at Westminster 1 Aug. 1397.

Return of the mayor and sheriffs that from time immemorial
they and their fellow-citizens had held London and Middlesex
to farm with divers liberties, customs, tolls, passages and
lastages on merchandise coming to London, for a certain
sum of money payable annually to the Exchequer, and that
the sheriffs had been accustomed to take toll and passage
as well from the burgesses of Oxford as others in aid of the
farm aforesaid, which liberties, free customs, privileges,
passages and lastages had been confirmed both by statutes
and by charters with the clause licet, contrary to which the
burgesses of Oxford had showed no cause why they should
be exonerated. Since the mayor and sheriffs were bound by
oath to observe the liberties of the city, they were unable to
exonerate the burgesses of Oxford from payment of toll and
passage, which were parcel of the aforesaid farm.

Membr. 1 b

25 May 1398

Bond of Robert Broun, skinner, to pay Albright Brant,
merchant of Almaine, the sum of £19 4s 8d, by half-yearly
payments of 40s. In case of default it was agreed that the
said Albright be at liberty to enter upon a tenement of the
said Robert in Petywalys (fn. 3) in the parish of All Hallows
Berkyng, of 2 marks annual value, 4s quitrent formerly
belonging to William Talworth in the same parish, three
shops in Porteslane in. the parish of St Dunstan by the Tower
of 28s annual value, and 16s 8d quitrent from tenements in
the parish of St Margaret Patyns in the occupation of Lady
la Mortimer and Sir John Wilteshire, knight.

Membr. 2

8 Nov. 1397

Writ of error to the Mayor and Aldermen with regard to
the plea of trespass brought by Thomas atte Hay, brewer,
against William Rothewell, chaplain, which plea was then
being examined by Hugh Huls and his fellows, the king's
justices, at St Martin le Grand. As the defendant William
Rothewell had alleged error in the record and process of the
plea, in that the plaintiff had not affirmed his bill of complaint by pledges, it is ordered that the bill be produced to
the justices at St Martin le Grand. Moreover, immediately
after the affirmation of the bill without pledges, the mayor's
serjeant had been ordered to attach the said William, as a
stranger, by his body. The justices required to know whether
it was an ancient custom of the city thus to attach a stranger
on the first day. Witnesses, William Thurnyng and Hugh
Huls at St Martin le Grand 8 Nov. 1397.

Return of Richard Whityngton, Mayor, and the Aldermen,
that they were sending the bill as duly affirmed by pledges,
and that it was immemorial custom in the city that when
any one affirmed a bill of trespass or debt with pledges
against a stranger, the latter ought to be attached on the
first day.

8 Nov. 1397

Writ of error to the Mayor and Aldermen with regard to the
plea of debt of £40 brought by Salamon Salmon against
Robert Dane, mercer, then under examination as above. As
the defendant alleged error in the record and process, in that
the plaintiff affirmed his bill without pledges, it is ordered
that the bill be produced before the justices. Moreover,
after the jury had been sworn on 21 March 1397 they had
demanded a day till the morrow to give their verdict and this
was granted to them by consent of the parties. As this was
alleged to be contrary to custom, the justices required to be
certified as to the custom on 13 Nov. Witness John Cassy
at St Martin le Grand, 8 Nov. 1397.

Return that the Mayor and Aldermen were sending the bill
as duly affirmed and that they were prepared to testify as to
the custom by the mouth of the recorder, as was customary
in the city, at the date and place mentioned.

Further return that it was immemorial custom for a jury
in personal actions in the Mayor's and Sheriffs' Courts to
demand and receive, by consent of the parties, a reasonable
day to give their verdict, in order that meanwhile they might
have more mature deliberation.

Membr. 2 b

4 Oct. 1397

Writ of error to the Mayor and Aldermen with regard to
the plea of trespass brought by John Neel, gardener, against
John Sewale, carter, in the court of Thomas Wilford, sheriff,
which was removed into the Chamber before the Mayor and
Aldermen and was then under review by the king's justices
at St Martin le Grand, the said John Sewale having complained that there was manifest error in the record and process and the rendering of judgment, namely, that whereas
Adam Bamme, late Mayor, and the Aldermen ordered the
sheriff to bring the plea before them in the Chamber on
1 Feb. 1397 and to warn the parties to be present, there was
no mention in the record and process of the sheriff's having
warned the parties and the complainant was not so warned,
to which John Neel had replied that the sheriff did in fact
warn the parties and that the said John Sewale, being warned,
appeared, although both the warning and appearance were
omitted from the record as sent to the justices—the Mayor
and Aldermen are required to send the full record and
process before the justices on 17 Nov. 1397. Witness William
Thirnyng, 4 Oct. 1397.

Return of Richard Whityngton, Mayor, and the Aldermen
that the sheriff did not certify them that he had summoned
the parties, but that it was immemorial custom, when they
caused an action pending in the Sheriffs' Court to come
before them, for the sheriffs or the mayor's serjeants to warn
the parties to appear on a certain day, and on this occasion
Richard Jargeville, the mayor's serjeant, warned the parties
to appear, and in obedience to this warning they appeared
and pleaded as appears in the record already sent.

Membr. 3

11 March 1398

Plaint levied in the compter of William Askham, one of the
sheriffs of London, on 11 March 1398:

John Barker, haberdasher, and Margaret his wife, widow
and executrix of Roger Crane, were summoned to answer
William Crane, haberdasher, in a plea of debt of £32; pledges
of prosecution, John Deux and Robert Northflete.

The sheriffs' serjeant was ordered, according to custom,
to summon the said John and Margaret for the next court
of the king, to wit, Wednesday 13 March, on which day the
said John came. The sheriffs' serjeant testified that he had
summoned the said John and Margaret. Thereupon the court
ordered the said John to bring his wife to answer with him
according to the custom of the city. Both defendants appearing on 15 March, the plaintiff made his declaration, in
which he complained that the late Roger Crane was found
to be in arrears to him in the sum of £32 by an account
made before John Broun, auditor, on 28 Aug. 1394, which
sum the said Margaret his executrix refused to pay, to his
damage £20.

Membr. 3 b

Upon this, in accordance with the custom whereby the
Mayor and Aldermen at their pleasure could cause a plea
pending in the Sheriffs' Court to come before them at the
request of either party and could terminate it after examination of the parties, or in any other due manner according to
the law merchant and the custom of the city, Richard
Whityngton, mayor, instructed his serjeant to order the
sheriff to bring the plea before him and to warn the parties
to appear the same day, which was done. The said William
Crane and John Barker appeared in person and the said
Margaret by John Barker as her attorney. A day was given
to them, by their consent, on Friday 22 March, when the
parties appeared. The mayor then asked the defendants
whether, if the plaintiff together with John Broun and John
Deux would swear that the said John Broun heard the
account and that the sum of £32 was due, they would be
willing to be condemned in £32 according to the law merchant
and the custom of the city and to be committed to prison.
The defendants peremptorily agreed, and the plaintiff for
his part agreed to be excluded from his action if he and the
said John Broun and John Dreux were unwilling to swear.

Thereupon the plaintiff, John Broun and John Dreux
being examined, swore as abovesaid. And because it is and
has been the custom of the city of London from a time
whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary,
that when the defendant in any bills or plaints before the
Mayor and Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guildhall or
before either of the Sheriffs is willing to put himself peremptorily on the oath of the plaintiff that the matter contained
in the bill or count is true, if the plaintiff is unwilling so to
swear, he ought by the law merchant and the custom of the
city to be excluded from his action and demand, but if he
so swears, the defendant ought to be condemned in the
plaintiff's action and demand, and because it is also the
custom that when the defendant offers to put himself
peremptorily on the oath of the plaintiff and other good
men with him (fn. 4), as upon the oath of the plaintiff alone upon
any point, matter or thing contained in such bill or count,
the same consequences ensue—therefore it was considered
that the plaintiff recover against the defendants the said
sum of £32. The plaintiff remitted the damages. The defendant John Barker, being present in court, was committed
to Ludgate until he paid.

Writ of certiorari, dated at Westminster 2 Aug. 1398,
demanding the record and process of the plea between
William Crane, haberdasher, and John Barker and Margaret
his wife, executrix of Roger Crane.

Membr. 4

10 June 1398

John Godolf, son of William Godolf, late citizen and
currier, brought a bill praying to be exonerated from his
apprenticeship to Richard Essex, draper, who had left his trade
and was residing outside the liberties of the city. [French]

The said Richard was summoned four times at his house
in the city and also by favour at Southwark, where he was
living, to show cause, but did not appear. Accordingly on
26 June the apprentice was ordered to find security to serve
the remainder of his term if Richard Essex within a year and
a day came and proved that before his departure he had transferred his apprentice to an honest man of the same trade,
or had assigned any one to provide for him and teach him
his trade.

31 Aug. 1398

Letter of attorney from Naveryna, widow and executrix of
John Thornbury, knight, reciting that on 30 March 1398,
she had, together with Philip, son of John Thornbury, and
Thomas Eston, recovered against Matheu de Magnane of
Bologna, moneychanger, and Gerard de Ferrar, executors of
the will of William Gold, Englishman, the third part of
6000 marks sterling and of other goods and chattels to the
value of 2000 marks, belonging to William Gold at the time
of his death, and that in part execution of the recovery, they
had received three chests containing silk cloth of gold, silk
kerchiefs and other silk, a coffer containing jewels of gold
and precious stones, to wit, rubies, sapphires, balaces(fn. 5),
diamonds and pearls, and a paper with divers letters and
accounts, which had been arrested by the mayor's serjeant
in the house of Thomas Fortebras, merchant of Lucca and
factor and attorney of the "companye" of Guynyse, and in
the hands of Jacob Manyan, son of the said Matheu, as being
the goods and chattels of William Gold, which goods had
been appraised at the value of £1200. She grants the above
goods to Balduche, son of John Parghia de Intermenell of
Lucca, with power to sell and dispose of them as his own,
and at the same time she appoints him her special attorney
to execute the remainder of the recovery. Dated at London
1 May 1398. [French]

Membr. 4 b

3 May 1398

Similar letters from Philip, son of Sir John Thornbury,
and Thomas Eston.

Membr. 5

6 Nov. 1397

Naveryna, widow of John Thornbury, knight, Philip, son
of the above John Thornbury, and Thomas Eston, executors
of the will of the said John, brought a bill of complaint by
Balduchius Parghia of Lucca, their attorney, in their own
names and that of William Grevell, their co-executor, against
Matheu de Magnane of Bologna, moneychanger, and Gerard
de Ferrar', executors of the will of William Gold, Englishman,
for the detinue of the third part of 6000 marks and of other
goods and chattels to the value of 2000 marks, viz. horses,
harness, jewels, pearls, rings etc., which was due to the
executors in accordance with an indenture of 24 Nov. 1379,
whereby the late Sir John Thornbury and William Golde
had agreed that the survivor of them should have a third
part of the goods of the other, and they claimed further
2000 marks damages. [French]

At the same court William Grevell appeared and disclaimed being an executor or taking any part in this action.
Accordingly he was separated from the action.

The remaining plaintiffs alleged that Matheu and Gerard
were foreign merchants dwelling outside the realm, but had
certain goods in the house of Thomas Fortebrace, factor of
the society of Guynes, merchants of Lucca, and in the
custody of Jacob Magnane, merchant of Bologna, which
belonged to William Golde, and they prayed that these goods
might be arrested as a foreign attachment. Order was given
to attach the goods and summon the said Matheu and Gerard
to appear on 12 Nov. The latter having made four defaults,
judgment was given for the plaintiffs on 30 March 1398 and
the goods were valued at £1200. The plaintiffs then agreed
that the goods should remain in the custody of the said Jacob
Magnane in case the defendants should appear within a year
and a day to defend the action, and the said Jacob and Thomas,
being at that time in London, entered into a bond to deliver
the goods and chattels if the defendants Matheu and Gerard
made no claim to them.

Membr. 5 b

1 April 1398

Writ of certiorari demanding that the record and process
of the above action be sent to Chancery. Dated at Westminster 1 April 1398.

Return to the same.

21 Nov. 1397

Inquisition post mortem taken before Richard Whityngton,
Mayor, and the Aldermen by oath of Richard Mustell and
others as to the lands and tenements whereof Richard Cok
died seised. The jurors said that he died seised in fee tail of
certain lands and tenements within the city by virtue of the
will of Robert Cok, glover, his father, enrolled in the Husting (fn. 6)
Ao 11, Ric. II, viz. certain tenements with an adjacent wharf
called "Dryngwatereswharf" in the parish of St Magnus by the
Bridge of £16 13s 4d annual value, a bakehouse with dwellings
above in the parish of Holy Trinity the Less in Knyghtriderstrete in the ward of Cordwanerstrete of 6 marks annual
value, and also of a tenement called "Litellondon(fn. 7)," with
houses built above and gardens adjacent, in the parish of All
Hallows atte Wall in Bradstrete Ward of 5 marks annual
value, but charged with an annual rent of 12s to the new
hospital of St Mary without Bishopsgate. As the last-named
rent had been in arrears for four years, John Mildenhall, prior
of the hospital, had entered into the property and had occupied
it until 23 Nov. 1393, when he and his convent by a deed
enrolled in the Rusting demised it to the said Richard Cok
and Ellen his wife and his heirs, which Richard died jointly
seised, with his wife, of the said property in fee tail. The date
of his death was 19 June 1397, when all the rents issuing
from the properties were arrested in the hands of the tenants
by one of the serjeants of the Chamber. A certain Agnes, his
daughter, was Richard's next heir, being over the age of two
years, and a certain Thomas Peroun, since his death, had
been in occupation of Litellondon.

Membr.7

1 July 1397

Thomas Somersete, brother and heir of John Lylleston,
brought a bill of complaint against John Skete that whereas
John Lylleston devised to Joan his wife, her heirs and assigns
a shop with solar and yard in Shytbournelane (fn. 8) in the parish
of St Mary Abbechirche, which he bought of William
Tapyser, and the said Joan afterwards married John Skete
and died, and the complainant thereupon entered as heir, on
the ground that a man by the custom of the city could not
devise to his wife more than a life interest in his tenement,
the said John Skete on 9 Jan. 1397 entered forcibly into the
tenement, breaking two doors to the value of 20s and carrying
away four locks to the value of 4s. [French]

The defendant, after three defaults, appeared on 9 July and
pleaded not guilty of force and arms, but admitted entering the
tenement, for which he alleged that the plaintiff had no action
against him, because men of the city could by the custom of
the city devise their tenements to their wives in fee simple,
and the said Joan became seised of the tenement after her
husband's death, and she, together with the defendant, granted
the tenement to John Cappe and Walter Hoper and others,
whose status he, the defendant, now possessed.

Both parties offered to verify their pleadings as to the
custom of the city. On 8 July a jury of the venue was summoned and brought in a verdict that the defendant entered
into the tenement in the manner and form alleged by the
plaintiff (fn. 9), and taxed the damages at 3s 4d.

Therefore it was considered that the plaintiff possess his
tenement and receive the damages taxed by the jury, and
that the defendant pay a fine of 2s to the king for his contempt.

Membr. 7 b

24 Feb. 1398

Writ to the mayor, sheriffs and recorder, appointing them,
with the assent of the king's council, to inquire by a jury into
the matter of a complaint made to the king by Donyna (fn. 10), widow
of John Haucwod, knight, who asserted that certain persons
enfeoffed with lands to the use of her husband, for the purchase of which he had from time to time sent sums of money,
were detaining these lands and other goods and chattels, and
had rendered no account of the profits thereof either to her
husband or herself, and further that they had removed from
St Paul's church a box of muniments belonging to her
husband and relating to these transactions. A return was
required to the council before the quindene of Easter. Dated
at Westminster 24 Feb. 1398.

Inquisition taken before Richard Whityngton, mayor,
William Askham and John Wodecok, sheriffs, on 11 April
1398 by oath of John Byle, John Mogoun, John Bret, Peter
Mason and Nicholas Cros of the parish of St Peter on Cornhill; Laurence Bakoun, Thomas Somerton, Walter Pope and
Peter Briklesworth of the parish of St Christopher; Robert
Cauntbrigg, Morice Archer, Thomas Drake, turner, and
Henry Anketil, shearman, of the parish of St Benet Fynk;
John Deux, Richard Lambard, Roger Horsley and John
Bussh of the parish of St Michael at Corn, who said on oath
that John Haucwod, knight, sent certain sums of money to
John Serjeant, Robert Rikedon, Thomas Coggeshale, Robert
Lyndeseye and John Sampson, who bought a tenement called
"Ledenhalle" in the parish of St Peter with a part of the
money, viz. the sum of 1200 marks, to the use of John
Haucwod, which tenement was of an annual value of £28 3s 8d,
and that since John Haucwod's death these persons had
received the issues of the property, but to whose use the
jurors did not know. They said further that the said John
and the others had taken a chest to St Paul's church for safe
custody and had afterwards removed it, but the jurors knew
nothing of its contents. Sealed with the seals of the jurors
and dated as above.

Membr. 8

20 July 1397

Writ of error to the mayor and sheriffs, demanding that
the record and process of the action of trespass brought by
Margery, widow of Richard Godard of London, and Thomas
Sybseye, tailor, against John Godard, goldsmith, before the
mayor, be brought into the next Court of Husting, and that
the execution of the judgment against the defendant be
suspended if he could find sufficient security to answer for
the damages adjudged against him, in case the judgment
were affirmed. Dated at Westminster 20 July 1397.

Similar writ, sicut alias, dated 6 Oct. 1397.

16 Nov. 1397

Writ ordering the mayor and sheriffs to return the
former writs to Chancery, since they had been issued
thoughtlessly (improvide(fn. 11)) from the king's court, in order that
other procedure might be taken. Dated at Westminster
16 Nov. 1397.

Membr. 8 b

27 Nov. 1397

Grant from Adam Profete of Canterbury to William
Parker, stockfishmonger, of all his goods and chattels, for
better evidence of which he puts the said William in possession
thereof by delivering to him a baselard plated with silver
(stipatum argento). Witnesses, John Osbern, Robert Frankleyn,
John Combe, William Rouchestre, John Walsingham and
others. Dated at London 22 Nov. 1397.

Footnotes

1.
Quod ipse non fuit rectus Rex. Probably the sense is proper or fitting,
rather than upright or rightful.

2. The reference is to the original charter of Oxford of 16 Feb. 1229.
See Munim. Gild. Land. (R.S.), 11, pp. 671-3.

3. The portion of Lower Thames Street from the Custom House to the
Tower precincts. Robert Broun's quay and the two quays formerly
belonging to William Capelyn de Taleworth afterwards formed the greater
portion of Marowe's New Quay.

4. The only peremptory oath was a single oath, and if either plaintiff
or defendant refused to swear, he thereby lost his action. The present
instance, as explained above, pp. 15, n. 1, 44, was merely a challenge, and
there was no custom that two other good men could be associated in
the oath. See Munim. Gild. Lond. (R.S.), i, pp. 217-18.

7. On the south side of London Wall. First mentioned by this name in
1371. It was bounded on the east by land belonging to London Bridge
and on the west by a tenement of William Kyng, which later belonged to
the Leathersellers and afterwards became the Ward School. It had a
frontage of 60 feet 4 inches. In 1540 it passed into the possession of
the Saddlers, with whom a portion still remains. Husting Rolls, 99 (126),
116 (123), 122 (26), 130 (33), 162 (78), 240 (6), 243 (24).

9. Though the parties pleaded as to right, the court considered only
the question of forcible entry in accordance with 5 Ric. II, c. 7,15 Ric. II,
c. 2.

10. Donnina, natural daughter of Bernabo Visconti, who married Sir John
Hawkwood, the leader of the White Company and a notable figure in
Florentine history. Hawkwood had purchased the Leadenhall through
feoffees for the purposes of his will. In 1409 the surviving feoffee executed
several deeds, the effect of which was to sell the property to the Mayor
and Commonalty of London, who still possess it. The proceeds appear
to have been used for the foundation of chantries, for the souls of Hawkwood and his companions, at Sible Hedingham and Castle Hedingham.
Husting Roll 108 (87); Temple Leader and Marcotti, Sir John Hawkwood; Letter Book I, fo. 103 b; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1408-13, p. 482; London
Topographical Record, xiii, pp. 10-15, "Notes on. the History of the
Leadenhall."

11. There was no appeal from the Mayor's Court to the Husting, but
only to a special commission of justices sitting at St Martin le Grand.